Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!

[SammyGal]

Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#0

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:46am

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/24735.htm

Mike>http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/24735.htm>http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/24735.htm

Mike Riedel- for once he made a funny calling her a part-time stripper.

She can't be in Bombay Dreams! The show shouldn't survive just cause of her! Assassins is closing but this show can get her?! WTF. Anyone else see a big problem with this ?

On a clear day I can see myself for miles ~Taboo

[TheGirlinTheFrock]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#1

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:50am

Hmmmm ... SammyGal this sounds fishy. Is this a job for the Rentectives?

Though scattered and divided we are still its heart...AIDA SEPTEMBER 5th, 2004...one more longing backward glance... I AM NOW "TGIF!"

[SammyGal]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#2

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:51am

i THINK so!

On a clear day I can see myself for miles ~Taboo

[DAME]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#3

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:51am

Sammy,
I sincerly doubt Janet Jackson is doing Bombay dreams. And she also starts rehearsals for her upcoming tour in September. SO....relax.

HUSSY POWER! ------ HUSSY POWER!

[SammyGal]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#4

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:52am

I know she won't do it. Its just the thought that boils my blood. blahhh

On a clear day I can see myself for miles ~Taboo

[TheGirlinTheFrock]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#5

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:55am

This is actually only th 2nd part to the mystery. The first part is how the show is still open!

Though scattered and divided we are still its heart...AIDA SEPTEMBER 5th, 2004...one more longing backward glance... I AM NOW "TGIF!"

[SammyGal]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#6

Posted: 7/9/04 at 3:56am

Andrew Lloyd Webber. Sleeping with the producers for more money?!

Maybe if they pretend Janet's in it they can keep it open to kill off the good shows in a Broadwaylicious scandal! *GASP*

On a clear day I can see myself for miles ~Taboo

[TheGirlinTheFrock]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#7

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:01am

maybe..o0o we got our first tip! I havee a source that says they have proof of a "scandal".Waiting to here what it is.

Though scattered and divided we are still its heart...AIDA SEPTEMBER 5th, 2004...one more longing backward glance... I AM NOW "TGIF!"

[SammyGal]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#8

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:04am

I'm gonna hum the lines "dammit Janet" a la RHPS while we're waiting for the tip off from your sources!

On a clear day I can see myself for miles ~Taboo

[TheGirlinTheFrock]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#9

Posted: 7/9/04 at 4:12am

okay. But i believe it is being mailed to me and should take 7-10 business days.

Though scattered and divided we are still its heart...AIDA SEPTEMBER 5th, 2004...one more longing backward glance... I AM NOW "TGIF!"

[BrdwyThtr]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#10

Posted: 7/9/04 at 6:34am

That's a horrible idea! She's not Indian!

[Plum]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#11

Posted: 7/9/04 at 8:54am

Her ethnicity is the least of that idea's problems.

[BWayBoy88]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#12

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:11am

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/87257.htmlhttp://www.playbill.com/news/article/87257.html>http://www.playbill.com/news/article/87257.html

[Matt_G]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#13

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:13am

I'm sure if Miss Jackson accepts their offer ticket prices will soar well beyond what they are at right now.

"Noah, someday we'll talk again. But there's things we'll never say. That sorrow deep inside you. It inside me, too. And it never go away. You be okay. You'll learn how to lose things..."

[BWayBoy88]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#14

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:42am

Is it just me or does she not look Indian at all

[popcultureboy]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#15

Posted: 7/9/04 at 11:55am

Right now she barely looks human.

Nothing precious, plain to see, don't make a fuss over me. Not loud, not soft, but somewhere inbetween. Say sorry, just let it be the word you mean.

[broadwaystar2b]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#16

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:11pm

This sounds like a huge case of "do you really think that the directors and writers and producers of a show risk the extra money in salary and integrity of the show just to cast someone who hasn't auditioned just like everyone else and proven (as much as an audition can prove!) that they can play the part well?" casting

[mominator]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#17

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:18pm

Just a point folks. This was in the Post, and we all know how reliable they are. (Remember a certain VP headline?) LOL

"All I ask of you is one thing: please don't be cynical. I hate cynicism -- it's my least favorite quality and it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen." Conan O'Brien

[StickToPriest]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#18

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:36pm

This actually doesn't bother me because the show is so commercialized and terrible as is, she wouldnt be able to do much harm. But the minute we read the headline 'Janet Jackson Broadway's Newest Mrs. Lovett', its time to panic.

"One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it."

The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.

[Sumofallthings]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#19

Posted: 7/9/04 at 12:54pm

Well if she does take this role. Shame on you Miss Jackson!

BSoBW2: I punched Sondheim in the face after I saw Wicked and said, "Why couldn't you write like that!?"

[zoran912]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#20

Posted: 7/9/04 at 1:45pm

If you have seen the show, you'll realize that it is one of the few shows that she could go into. Rani is a perfect role for her. She doesn't even have to sing. She just lipsynchs to Priya Kalidas's recording from the London production.

[Mister Matt]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#21

Posted: 7/9/04 at 1:54pm

I bet the elusive Voiceanth is drooling at the thought.

Yeah, Jackson is the epitome of Hindu Bollywood culture.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

[MargoChanning]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#22

Posted: 7/9/04 at 2:09pm

I have no doubt the producers would love to have Janet in the show, but what would possibly possess Janet Jackson to want to do it? Aside from everything else, what would make her want to do eight shows a week for, what, $100,000/week at most, when she makes many times that amount for just one concert (her personal take from her last tour was in the tens of millions). She's still an A-list star, why would she hurt her reputation by being in a D-list show?

Frankly, the show's doing just fine without her. Despite the critical pans and Tony snubs, it's been one of the top ten grossers on Broadway since it opened and makes a weekly profit in the hundreds of thousands. It's advance is weak, but walk up business is strong. Out of town audiences love it (I talked to a bunch of folks the other week who said it was their favorite show out of the five they saw on their big NY vacation). It's light, mindless entertainment -- perfect for the tourists, most of whom have no desire to see anything that might challenge or provoke them (i.e., Assassins). With or without Miss Jackson (and it'll most certainly be without), it'll likely run for a couple of years.

"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie [http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/] "The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney

[magicfingers]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#23

Posted: 7/9/04 at 2:25pm

i agree with MargoChanning....we forget that most shows on Broadway that run a long time run off of walk up biz, not huge advances....Advances as we know (The producers) can be gone in a matter of months....The test of a long running show is walk up biz by tourists....I recall a certain small musical ( miss saigon) that ran at 60-70 % in the same house BD's is running for many years. As long as the show is making money each week...at it's worst week BD's has still grossed over 100,000, it can run. This should make the producers happy. A show does NOT have to gross 1,000,000 a week to run. The word of mouth is growing on BD's and tourists are realizing that if the big shows are sold out this is a good alternative for an evening of fun. Anyone surprised that Assasins is closing doesn't know anything about the economics of theatre. Shows that run are TOURIST shows...this is the golden rule of Broadway.
I know how pissed everyone on this board is that BD's is running longer than Assasins BUT do you really think tourists coming into town want to be depressed for an evening ( as brilliant as Assasins is) or be happy for 100 bucks>?! It's great Assasins got all the reviews and awards and adulation but it is NOT a show that will run a long time.
BD's seems to be doing slow biz this month, but it is still turning a profit. That bodes well for it.

[spiderdj82]

re: Janet Jackson in Bombay Dreams?!#24

Posted: 7/9/04 at 2:29pm

I know what you mean. I mean, why do you think Phantom of the Opera has been around so long? It is kind of a tradition for tourists to make POTO one of the shows to see. I know when I finally get to New York to see a Broadway show, that is going to be one of them. It's all about the tourists

"They're eating her and then they're going to eat me. OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!" -Troll 2